Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 399 (JHR)

Juru Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2016-03-01

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2011, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2011, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Seraikella in Complaint Case No. C/1 Case No.12 of 2004 (T.R. No. 313 of 2011), whereby the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 147 and 379 of the I.P.C. and petitioners were directed to undergo R.I. for one year and two years respectively for the aforesaid offences. 2. It is submitted by Sri Kamdeo Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned courts below had not appreciated the evidence correctly, therefore, the judgment of conviction cannot be sustained. It is also submitted that so far the order of sentence is concerned, the same cannot be sustained, because the learned courts below had not assigned any special reason as required under Section 361 of the Cr. P.C. for not giving benefit to the petitioners available under the Probation of Offenders Act. 3. On the other hand, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned Additional P.P. and Sri Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the complainant submit that the learned courts below after considering the evidences available on record come to the conclusion that the petitioners committed the aforesaid crime. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence do not require any interference by this Court. 4. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of the impugned judgments of the courts below, I find that both the learned courts below had considered the evidences available on record and come to the conclusion that the petitioners have committed the crime. Under the said circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of facts of the learned courts below. Thus, I affirm the judgment of conviction of the petitioners under Sections 147 and 347 of the I.P.C. 5. Now, coming to the order of sentence, I find that both the learned courts below had not given any special reason as required under Section 361 of the Cr. P.C. for not giving benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. Thus, the order of sentence passed by the learned courts below cannot be sustained. Now, coming to the order of sentence, I find that both the learned courts below had not given any special reason as required under Section 361 of the Cr. P.C. for not giving benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. Thus, the order of sentence passed by the learned courts below cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed and order of sentence passed by the learned courts below is hereby set aside. 6. However, since the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 147 and 379 of the I.P.C. in which maximum punishment is two years and three years respectively and as it appears from the impugned judgments that the petitioners are the first offenders, therefore, I direct the learned trial court namely, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Seraikella to release the petitioners named above, on probation of good conduct as per Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in connection with Complaint Case No. C/1 Case No.12 of 2004, corresponding to T.R. No. 313 of 2011.